Should anyone born in the United States get citizenship?

Either this guy is lost or he has not realized we are talking about immigration. Well, I guess slow people gravitate towards the least viable candidate.

Since Whites moved here, racism has increased, ignorance is common, and arrogance and attacks against other than white people are common. Maybe we should keep our lawns green and get rid of Whites.

Maybe you're being too touchy because you are illegal?

maybe I'm too touchy because you are a racists. Your comment was not even funy.

If that's where evolution began, then, what has gone wrong? Please don't wave that old piece of **s wipe in my face. Take a good look around you and you will quickly see just how full off crap you are. The least evolved people I have ever seen are the ones you claim are from, or living in your so called cradle of civilization. You need to take your edu-phobia and go back to your ghetto!

Your "Africa link" is now being dis-proven as we speak. Modern science always looks for the easy way out, and that is their way of saying, "this is too hard to figure out, so we'll just say that modern man started here and end the debate", well, there is a new debate raging in light of recent evidence that predates any ethiopian, or african culture by hundreds of thousands of years, not on the dark continent, but at the poles of all places. As for the immigration issue, there comes a time when a nations soverignity has been declared and recognized that immigration must be curtailed so as to not outstrip the resources of that land. Also, it would be wise, if people wish to enter a country, to try to assimilate. Learn the language, customs, and embrace that culture. Show some patriotism, in other words, for their adopted land. One should not expect their hosts to learn their language, customs, and morals,(or lack of), nor should they expect a free ride on my dime! The ones who would enter illegally are nothing more that leeches who want to screw things up in this country for people who have to bust their butts to make ends meet. Each illegal in this country now costs the average tax payer plenty, yet, more sneak in each day. I for one, applaud states that are finally showing the intestinal fortitude to turn the lights on these cockroaches.

History shows that that is not what happened in America when the first white colonies were established. Instead, white colonies impose their will and displaced those whom rightfully belong in America. In fact, white colonies desimated and destroyed the cultural base in precolonial America.

As an injun I think you begin to understand, although I am not sure just who you are trying to argue with. We injuns get no racial pride, or heritage, or culture holidays or months or anything else, and I think that we have been wronged probably more than any other cultural group. Maybe we should start whining for reparations for the broken treaties and genocide.

When one wants justice, one is also searching for the bare truth. My coment related only to state the facts. The facts regarding a population that has made history imposing their will with their ill and misguided racial and religious principles that whites are better than other cultures or religions--most whites nowadays are not racists but their social status was built in racism. The arguments posted in this forum tend to eventuali merge to conclude that Mexicans or Mexican descent US citizens, should not have the right of citizenship or should have their citizenship taken away. To me is nothing but history revisited. Whites are comming with an illogical argument to rationalized something that is in escense unjust and unconstitutional. Proposing the question of whether a US citizen born in America should be or not a citizen, does nothing but to propose legislation to make an injustice and erode our Constitution--law makers do not necesarily rationalize these issues, they act upon the mob mentality to preserve public power. Therefore, exposing the points in where arguments become exagerated or just simply untrue, may help, or not, readers to help them find the truth and help them make their own opinion.

You speak the truth, although in broken english, but I must still dis-agree on the immigration issue. These are harder times, and the answers are much harder to find, mostly thanks to our so called leaders.

Citizenship is not a benefit, it is a constitutional right. The Constitution of the United States gets its powers from the citizens of the United States. One does not have to speak or write perfect English to recognize that taking away the right of citizenship directly erodes the power that the Constitution of the United States was given. The Framers of the Constitution—in particular Alexander Hamilton—explained in his Federalist Papers that the powers granted to each of the Governmental Powers (the Legislative, the Executive and the Judicial) would amount to nothing if the power of the people that grant it in the first place loose their power or is taken away. The Constitution of the United States would be harmed beyond repair if the government is given the authority to decide who overpowers them. The Constitutional base of this country is such that it guarantees each citizen protection from their government. Violating this compact is violating the constitution of the United States. It is through this reasoning, that the Framers of the Constitution as well as many generations after them recognize that citizenship of an individual attained at birth cannot be taken away from that individual unless the individual violates the social compact that exists between the country and the individual. Since a baby cannot possibly be able to violate that compact, it is the duty of a nation to take care of their own. Every human being is born without having to make the decision of who his or her parents are, or what is going to be their country, their race and some time their religion. Citizenship of an individual is attained by chance. Just because we are living is hard times, does not mean that we have to change the Constitution of our own country, or give away the rights that if lost would be lost forever. If you want to make things better, then you need to refrain from making suggestions that would lead to the erosion of our Constitution.

The constitution? What about the rights of others who live here that are being stomped on? I agree with closing the borders, but only until we can sort out the mess we now find ourselves in due to bleeding hearts who say anything goes and "it will be alright". If these people would come into our land with respect it would be an entirely different story.

The rights of others would amount to nothing if the Constitution is eroded. Destroying the principles contained in “how someone attains his or her citizenship in this country” is the same as destroying the foundations of a Constitution. You cannot attain certain rights unless you are a citizen. If you deny citizenship to those who suppose to have it in the first place, it is that same as stepping all over them. You have been trying to find a solution that would in turn weaken virtually all the laws in the land that find its way to agree with the constitution. If you get rid of a fundamental constitutional right, thousands of other rights disappear. That's how the system works.

Don't be so dramatic. Drama will not make your argument stronger or believable. Where did you come with the idea that illegal are stomping on your rights as a citizen. How did that happened? We are talking about citizenship. We are talking about proposing a law that denies citizenship to a class of people born in the Unites States. What we are talking about, and what the reporter proposed in his or her question is whether a certain US citizen should be denied of his birthright citizenship because of his parents illegal status. We are talking about the citizen, the baby who is born in the United States. That affects everyone that is born under the same circumstances. Laws are made in such a way that targets the criminal, not the parents, not the family, not the ethnical population he or she belongs. You are referring to "these people...[who] come into our land with disrespect." Then your argument falls outside what we have been talking about. We are talking about the baby. As I see it, no one comes to this world in a disrespectful manner. And certainly, no US citizen deserves to be kicked out of this country under your argument.

The law that you may be referring to, is an American law contained in Title 8 of the United States Code, under Part I of Subchapter III of Chapter 12, Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization", or "The Nationality Law" or for some "Immigration Law", that says that in the case where someone is born abroad—meaning outside the United States jurisdiction—and at least one parent is a US citizen, the baby may be categorized as a U.S. born citizen as long as one of the parents is a US citizenship who resided in the US for at leat one year before the irth of the kid or knowe that the baby was his before the kid turned 5 and registers his or her baby at the nearest US Embassy or consulate before the age of 21. The law becomes more strict if the parent obtained US citizen through naturalization.

Better off, here is the law verbatim. There are eight types of Nationals and Citizens in the US that attained US citizenship at birth. Title 8 of United States Code Section 1401 relates of all the people that are legally entitle to call themselves “Nationals and citizens of United States at birth.” Section 1401(a) is not a braner, it got its legal authority directly from the Constitution. Section 1401(b) will be hard for some to undertand where it attained its legal authority but the clue is that a requirement to be a citizen is to give alegiance to the country; some Indian tribes do not directly pledge allegiance to the United States, therefore section 1401(b) exists. Section 1401(b) is a testament that some people born in the US are not citizens as long as the parent clearly represents an organization that has pledged aleagiance to other than the US. Therefore, later on in the Nationality Law is found that children born from dignataries of other countries that are in the US representing their country in an official form are not US citizens. Section 1401(c) though 1401(h) got the authority through legislative and executive authority.

SECTION 1401 (cite 8 USC 1401)

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such
citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person

-- (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or

-- (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

What countries do what you claim? I tried to confirm your claim and that seams to be a lie.

Could you please tell us what countries have laws that forbid the priviledge of citizenship to illegal immigrants?

Those wo are here illegal do not have any rights ,frist we have laws that govern how to become acitizen of the united states and it does not include stealing your way into the contry like most illegals think. They think if they can get across the border then their home free and have a right to get in the wefair line, start getting wick for their babys and foodstamps for theirselves, but our goverment has caused this problem .We need to start greeting them with a cell in a local jail that comes with amonth of hard labor to earn a trip back scross the border.After all american people are put there for lesser crimes everyday.

Thank you for having the guts to speak out as an American!

How can somebody who thinks taking the citizenship birthright of any US citizen be called patriotic or Amrerican?

Are you?

I am an American who is also a war veteran born in the US. I have seen how certain ethnic groups in other countries at war have been denied of their rights just because such group falls in the minority. I oppose any kind of legislation that would propose to take away the citizenship of those whom obtained their US citizenship like everyone else that was born in this country. Someone has called such a type of birth the "accident of birth," I also believe that everyone born in the US was born by an accident. What I mean is that every US born citizen is a citizen by the virtue of having born by accident in the US. Do not deny the citizenship of those born in this country and make the same mistake that some despotic dictator in other countries do to their citizens. I believe that any American that is denied of his or her right of being a US citizen is not only unconstitutional but also un-America

If they were born in this country, they are US citizens.

Even illegal aliens enjoy from some civil rights. In most civilized countries this is well understood. We are a civilized country--or so I think. For example, the right of due process is a right that even an illegal alien enjoys. It is obvious you need to review our civil laws and our laws that explain the constitution of our nation. This is what I think. I think it is more dangerous for us Americans to be ignorant of our own legal system. It is true that we have laws that govern the way someone becomes a citizen: by birth or "jus soli citizenship"; by transfer or "jus sanguinis citizenship" and through oath of allegiance or by naturalization. However, citizenship is more than a word. Citizenship is a concept--more technically, a legal concept--a concept that embodies in its core allegiance to a country. Under the Nationality laws of the United States contained in Title 8 of the United States Code, one not only can find the process in which one can gain citizenship but also the process in which one can lose such citizenship. The process to lose citizenship is called denaturalization. Sometimes, denaturalization may occur administratively--a bureaucratic, uneducated know-it-all behind a desk at the United States State Department may just decide you may or may not be a US citizen. For those Jewish Americans that have volunteered or want to volunteer to go to Israel and fight for what some of them consider their holy mother land and pledge allegiance to a foreign military is a good example on how someone can lose their US citizenship through administrative denaturalization. Another way to lose ones citizenship is by declaring that one does not longer want to be a US citizen. It's interesting to see how people get so rattle when it comes to citizenship. Citizenship relates to allegiance to their country. Allegiance to protect their political State, this federal State made of unified States we called the United States of America. Unfortunately, for most US citizens, serving this country in time of war is not something they are willing to do. We are therefore hypocrites to even call ourselves true citizens considering the principles that embody the word citizenship. I would ask those, who seem to not even know how this country works or what this country stands for, how have they pledged allegiance to their country, to this country, the United States. Are they willing to serve for this country in time of war? Are American citizens lining up in front of a military recruiter officer to go to Iraq or Afghanistan to at least give the Unknown Soldier that has been serving there three times a break? The answer is no! The vast majority of American Citizens are nor patriotic enough to even consider such sacrifice for their own country. The vast majority of Americans are not even willing to do the hard work necessary to make this country strong. Some of you may argue that you don't need to be in the military to be a patriotic US citizen. I agree! Well stay in school and get an advanced degree in something this country desperately needs! ENGINEERS. We are importing thousands of engineers every year because this country is too lazy to learn engineering. Every engineering Department at every US university is full of foreigners because US citizens are either not qualified to enter the Engineering Schools or think is too hard. We Americans are too lethargic even in the things that don't require to expose our lives but our brains. We have heard all the excuses. Some people think that School is too expensive. Some say, "I'm too smart to be in the military or the military is for people that cannot find a job in MacDonalds." Other say, I don't want to wash dirty dishes for twelve hours in a restaurant for $5.00 an hr--it's beneath us. Whatever the excuse is, to get this country back to its feet, it takes a work force that is educated and willing to do the jobs that are required to keep American alive. Not everybody can be a singer, an actress or a house wife—we already have too many of those. We cannot be expecting to have foreigners to do the job for us forever. Whether the job requires washing dishes or designing cars or teaching in our Universities, Americans have demonstrated to lack experience or willingness to do that job. I am ashamed to see us blaming others for our defects. Although illegal immigration is a problem, the problem is not the core issue causing the deficiency in our schools, in our jobs, in the housing market or unemployment. Those problems are mostly created by us, US citizens, that are unwilling and incapable to solve those problems because we have relied on bad leadership and bad education.

If that was true, why most people in America are white? It looks to me that the people that came to America and reproduced like rabits were most likely the Europeans rather than the Mexicans.

When I read your post, it almost sounds the same way as the junk mail I get in my email account. They all start with, "a friend sent me this"

I agree about our senators who would not vote for ENGLISH to be americas lanuage.W HERE DO THESE SENATORS think they live? Maybe they serve Mexico if this be the case they need to be over there getting apaycheck, oh sorry I forgot we pay the bills for all t he illegal babys that are born here everyday,so guess we can forget about getting any help from that side of the border.WHO DO YOU THINK YOUR FOOLING WE THE PEOPLE KNOW THAT CONGRESS,SENATORS,THE HOUSE OR THE PRESIDENTARE NOT DEVOTED TO HELPING SOLVE THIS PROBLEM THEY ONLY ADD MORE HARDSHIP TO THE HARD WORKING TAX PAYING LEAGLE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES SO COME ON WAKE UP ,HELP AMERICA THE REAL PEOPLE THAT HAVE WORKED FOUGHT AND GAVE THEIR LIVES FOR OUR FREEDOM.THESE ARE THE REAL AMERICANS THAT INCLUDES ALL THAT ARE HERE LEGEALY .

I just want to comment—without getting into immigration—that your post is interesting because it talks about making English our official language while it is obvious that you have problems writing a simple paragraph.

Considering that English becomes our official language by law, how are you going to enforce it? Does that mean that a tourist is not allowed to speak his or her language while visiting? Does that mean that a US citizen is not allowed to talk or learn another language? What about if they write as poorly as you? Should we impose a fine?

I could very well sit and pick at your use of the language, but, that is not what this discussion is about. Since you don't want to "get into" the issues, maybe you should sit down, shut up, and quit being such a nit picking whiner. I believe what the previous poster, although not so eloquently, meant was that at the grassroots level, certain attitudes seem to show a blatant lack of devotion to the land that certain ethnic groups have deserted their own country to invade. Please do not attempt to muddle the issues with your bull.
If you don't wish to add anything useful to the discussion, then you are wasting everyones' time. You could have made your point without attacking someone over their writing skills. It may be that they are simply not proficient in the use of the QWERTY keyboard, or, they may be intelligent enough, but not educated. Whatever.

Well written paragraph. However, you start your thoughts by writing, "maybe you should sit down, shut up, and quit being such a nit picking whiner" and ended your own thoughts by writing, "You could have made your point without attacking someone over their writing skills".

The issue at hand is "Should anyone born in the United States get citizenship?” Someone brought a direct attack to people whom English is not their first language to basically make their choice to speak another language illegal. Such comment does not address the issue of citizenship as citizenship and language are not connected. For example, American Indians speak English not by choice, they do it because their culture and identity was systematically destroyed by the White community through the years. Whites imposed their culture on American Indians dissolving them from their own language and traditions because whites in general believed that their cultural values were superior before anybody else’s.

What was interesting is that you don’t believe that bringing up the premise of making English the official language is laughable when it offered by an individual that has written his opinion with poor English skills. A stupid comment deserves in response a stupid answer.

Nevertheless, you are trying to bring civility to the discussion by making the same mistakes the person with poor English writing skills made.

Therefore, I analyzed your post. Your comment was, "I believe what the previous poster, although not so eloquently, meant was that at the grassroots level, certain attitudes seem to show a blatant lack of devotion to the land that certain ethnic groups have deserted their own country to invade. Please do not attempt to muddle the issues with your bull." If I were to zoom even more in your comment you are saying that, "certain attitudes seem to show a blatant lack of devotion to the land that certain ethnic groups have deserted their own country to invade." What does this mean?

The art of writing English--or for some to speaking English--is not the same and should not be confused with the art of communication, which is offered by all languages in this world. Just because you put words together with maybe good grammatical English structure, does not mean that your message is eloquent or has meaning. I honestly do not understand your point; your point is lost in your rambling ambiguity. You mentioned that certain attitudes are show lack of devotion to the United States. How and why? Just because you say so! You say that certain ethnic groups have deserted their own countries to invade. Who are you talking about? Be more specific. If you are going to attack Mexicans or population with Mexican descent, be direct. However, you should also expect criticism towards whatever your ethnical background is. Your comment is also applicable to the White race community that emigrated to America--or on your own words "abandoned" their land--to come to America--or in your own words "invade" America--to impose their own will.

The US is roughly 200 years old, considering it was founded in 1775. In mid 1700s, white population was merely concentrated in the upper East of our modern United States. The US would not be mostly white (80% white) if it were not from the massive exodus that occurred from Europe to the United States in the 1700s, mid 1800s and early 1900s. Whites would not have such a heavy concentration if it weren’t for their desire to find a land that was more hospitable to their dreams of success. The vast majority of whites that came to America escape Europe from poverty, war, persecution, incarceration, oppressive regimes or just merely because they expected to find a better chance to improve their lives. Very few whites were actually from affluent background. As white immigration with racist ideas increased in disproportion to the American Indian population in the expanding United States, Ameridians were not only ethnically destroyed but also displaced to other countries such as Canada and Mexico. By the early 1900s, the face of America had changed dramatically in a matter of 100 years.

The core issue at hand is citizenship. However, one can only assume that most comments gravitate to ask the question of whether an individual who happens to be other than white and is born in America be allowed to call himself or herself a US citizen. Specifically, whether a person who is born in America from illegal Mexican parents is deserving from the full protections that other people born in America deserves.

I don’t believe that speaking a language other than English or being a son or daughter of an illegal Mexican is enough cause to legally prevent a US citizen from their constitutional birth right.

Here you go again, nit-picking. The bottom line here is this. This country was originally, like Australia, etc., as a dumping ground for the "undesirables" from other countries, mostly England, France, and Germany. These "pioneers" would not have survived the first few winters were it not for the kindness of the aboriginals who were here for centuries before they came. The natives in turn were repaid for their kindness with christian genocide. The nation that arose from that travesty is now called America. It just so happens that the prevailing language of this country is English. The immigrants who followed to this land learned that language, (English), and assimilated into the culture, i.e. became Americans. The new trend in immigration seems to be to expect the land invaded, (see Aztlan), to which these people seem to feel entitled, is now expected to re-train itself to their culture, language, etc. We are expected to bend over backwards to become Spanish when they are the ones who "deserted" their land just as they did in order to colonize Mexico. You see, the Mexican people are not even Spanish by their heritage, so Spanish is not even their native language, (if you want to nit-pick). Their native tongue would actually be Navajo or possibly Apache. But, all that aside, these are different times with different circumstances. In this day and age, we face a different set of problems, mostly created, or at least, agitated by our corrupt so called leadership, the rapid advance of the North American Union, (which will meld Canada, U.S.A., and Mexico into one country, and eventually, the New World Order which will make the whole planet bow to a one world government, and religion. So, yes, you are partially right, but we CAN NOT fall back on that old history line, for nothing has been learned from history, (not by them at least, or apparently you for that matter), and when nothing is learned from history, we are doomed to repeat it, which, at this juncture in history, will be fatal for our country. Bottom line here is this, (if you had been paying attention you would already know this), It is not about white, it is not about color, it is about whether or not a country such as oh, say, this one can sustain the growing burden of immigration by a people who prefer to make no effort to meld with the existing and accepted culture, place an increased burden upon an economy which is already in trouble, and lower the standard of living for those who were in effect "here first". If you have the answers, let's hear them. If you don't, then why are you wasting my time, picking at my observations? We all know the history lessons, both the lies the white schools tell, and the truth we discover for ourselves. This is why I say, if you don't have something to contribute, sit down, shut up, and listen.

What is Aztlan, a book? A website? Who wrote it? What is it about?

My contribution starts by exposing the flaws in your argument. Your arguments are as logical as trying to save someone from bleeding from the head by applying a tourniquet around the individual’s throat. Framing the question of whether we should limit some class of people have the right of citizenship which is based on the accident of being born is as idiotic as framing the question of whether we should apply a tourniquet around somebody’s neck to save their life. You may not be able to see the obvious connection, others do.

On the other hand, if the question would have been framed as whether an illegal person should be deported, then the answers given would have converge to a more viable solution.

If you want serious thinking that leads to some logical answer, the question should have been frame in a more logical manner. In the same token that someone does not normally asks someone else a question like, “should we or should we not put a parachute if we jump from a plane 3000 feet in the air?” Of course the logical answer is that if you jump from the plane without parachute you will die. If you make legislation that contradicts the constitution, you will create chaos not only in the legal system but also you create a new class of people that do not have rights of any kind. You create two main problems, (1) Legislation is in direct contradiction of the constitution and is therefore unconstitutional; or (2) you create a new form of government by taking away the principles in which the constitution was empowered.

We should not care about how other constitutions were created or how other constitutions handle citizenship. The Constitution of the United States was revolutionary in its creation because it asserted the fact that the powers granted to it were given by “the people”--whether “the people” were citizens or not is debatable. We cannot just make the arguments of taking away the citizenship of an individual born within the jurisdiction of the United States without touching the point of how the constitution attained its powers in the first place. In other words, the foundation of a Constitution that Unifies States in a Union is based in the principle that it gained its powers by respecting a higher power which is the power that the citizens exert over their own government.

Taking away the rights of citizenship to a class of people through legislation is not new. The Supreme Court erroneously decided that a citizen was that that was born in the United States as a free man. This decision was challenge in the famous court hearing of a black before the civil war (see Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857). That court hearing end up in making a court opinion that not only defied common sense by asserting that certain class of population was incapable to attain citizenship, but at times it also implied that the government has the power to take away the citizenship of those who gave power to it. The consequences of this Court decision transcended at that time to a point where not even the court was trusted to protect the rights of citizens any more. The Court System was considered to be corrupted by not being capable to safeguard and interpret the wishes of the people. For this reason and many more, the United States entered a period of civil war. The fourteenth Amendment was the result to repair the rights of citizenship of black Americans, or better said, other than whites.
However, some people see it differently. Some people have not study or do not know the history behind the fourteenth amendment.

Your argument is full of fallacies. Your argument would be valid if you were to somehow demonstrate that the principles or arguments that assert the constitutional right of citizenship given by the fourteenth amendment were faulty. That would be done by first revisiting those arguments and then disproving them somehow. At this moment, no one has been able to disprove them. Your arguments are no different that dose already given in court hearing and assembly during 1850s, 1880s, 1920s, 1950s, and post September 11.

My contribution is to make you aware of the history behind this issue. It is not something new.

Dear Retired Coronel,

I am an active member of the United States Armed forces and both my parents are foreigner. I have served in the U.S. military for 13 years. I find your comment a little misinformed. Abraham Lincoln lived through times where blacks in America were considered--as some put it at that time--property that did not amount to have the rights of citizenship. In court, some went as far as comparing blacks to cattle, imported to do labor. Blacks and their offspring where not, in those people eyes, deserving to have the birthright of citizenship.

One of the reasons why we went to war is because people in the south did not and were not willing to give the right of citizenship to blacks. The birth of the fourteenth amendment was due to ratify this right rather than to make a new law.

Those who follow military history--and the history of our Nation--are conscious that people of all races, creeds and nationality origin have defended the United States. They have spoken many languages and have had many takes on religious beliefs. However, one thing brought all those people together, and that is the belief that people of a nation have to unite to preserve a Nation under stress. Alexander Hamilton was born in the Caribbean Island; Thomas Paine, the one attributed to put the thought seed of independence was Irish; so were Butler, Fitzsimons, McHenry, and Paterson with exception of Wilson who was from Scotland. Imigrants have contributed in fighting wars, have contributed in writing the Constitution and have understood the intrinsic value of citizenship.

Citizenship is a concept that involves the promise that a State will get protection from its citizens if the State protects the rights of those citizens. This is called protection of a country through allegiance. It has nothing to do with language, religion, race parenthood and so forth. I believe that your argument is somewhat distracting to what the point is, that is citizenship and language has not connection with allegiance. However, citizenship and allegiance has a lot to do with it.

Currently, the United States military employs thousands of people who have not obtained their citizenship. They have obtained employment at the United States Armed forces because they have legal residency. But the United States has not made sure to grant citizenship protection to some that have fought hard to protect this Nation. If anyone is seeking for reform, maybe we should reform the Nationality law to grant citizenship to those who have pledged allegiance and defend the US at war. Or not allow anybody but citizens to serve in the military.

I guess Lincoln coment should be taken under the light of his argument, rather that as a comment that has nothing to do with citizenship.

First of all, this was not my post. It was just sent to me, and I thought it worth passing on in light of this subject. secondly, sir, you are mis-informed about several things. I have made a lifetime study of the history and sociology you seem to feel qualified to school me in. The truth is, that the Civil War was started over the Union trying to force industrialization, and unionization upon the southern states who were an independent agri based nation already formed, whose crops,(mainly hemp), supplied the entire nation. A cursory study of the actual history here will find that the slavery/citizenship issue was tacked on by self serving politicians of the time, (Lincoln, et al), for their own political aims. The real issue here is this; There comes a time in the sovereignity of any nation when they must of needs close their borders to tend to their own problems so that they will be able to maintain that sovereignity. What we see happening here in the USA right now is exemplary of the breakdown endemic to too much immigration. The problem is aggravated by the influx of illegals who refuse to assimilate into our culture, but instead, insist that we learn their language, and customs, and give them a free ride in the bargain while they siphon billions off of our economy. Wake up and see the truth.

In your argument you seem to have made the claim that our sovereignty is in danger because of illegal immigration; I don’t see the danger though. I'm afraid that you are exaggerating.

If you would check the numbers, readily available from several credible news sources, you would see that the statistics do not lie. We are being subjected to an un-sustainable burden which will, if left unchecked, be another nail in the coffin of what was once the greatest nation in the world. Take a trip to texas, the border towns, and you will see the third world quality of life already rearing its ugly head. Please educate yourself. Knowledge is power.

You must be talking about FOX right? They are as reliable as Al'Jazeera

I don't depend upon any of the controlled/propaganda media, but, if you check some of the other world wide feeds, and not just one, check many, and then extrapolate the data, you may become enlightened.

Ho do you extrapolate the data?

You based all your facts in media junk! We don't have to go to the border to see that. You just have to go to Wasington Hights in New York, East Palo Alto, California, Richmond, California; Washington DC; etc. If you want to see groups of Americans ignored by the US, you have to see the Getoes arround the US where minorities such as blacks live there. We, Americans have to also see the backyard and see how messed up we are. You are living a lie.

It sounds like you may need to learn to read, and write. You obviously mis-understood the meaning of my post. It was just an observation. While a lot of my observations are based upon first hand knowledge, I also back them from world wide news feeds. Do not trust the propaganda networks like fox, and cnn, or any syndicated networks as they are all owned by the same special interests, and cater to their agenda of dis-information, and white-washing/hiding the facts by ommission. Some of the European sources are less frightened by the truth, though, occasionally, the networks here let slip a pearl or two. Take in all of the feeds, then extrapolate the data, and make your own decisions, but don't call me names, I'm just the messenger.

You know that your comments were not just an observation. Your comments are with the intent to put more hot air to your claim. Your comments do nothing but exagerate and inflame the issue with the hope to convince people that the United State is on fire and that we must act. In trying to resolve an issue, one must be willing to honestly see the problem with deductive reasoning, without passion and without attacking the people that disagree with us. If you disagree? Attack the argument, not the person.

You sound like the one doing the attacking. Maybe you should take some time to educate yourself first. the only hot air seems to be coming from you. Do you dis-agree that immigration is, at present, a problem? if you do, then you have not availed yourself of all of the facts. If you agree that something about the present immigration policies is going terribly wrong, then, why are you attacking me for stating what I have only observed? It seems to me that you are one of todays self righteous liberals who "would bitch if you were hanged with a new rope", or, in other words, you would be righteously indignant about my comment no matter what I said.

Immigration is a man made problem. To you is a problem, to me it is not as problematic as you claim it is. The media makes immigration look alarmatic. What I think is that this administration is using immigration as a scape goat for all the problems they have gotten us into. You just happen to buy in all that.

Second, if you had read all of the posts here, and maybe even some of the worldwide news feeds, you would not have made such stupid statements! To you this may not be a problem because you are probably a foreigner, maybe you should go back to your country of origin and fix things there. This administration is causing the immigration problem. I don't "buy in" to anything unless I can verify it by extrapolating all of the information available and my own observations, (yes, I know, there are probably too many two dollar words here for you). You seem to "buy in" to whatever you were told by whoever helped you slip into the country.

I have read the posts and still think you are wong.

You have your opinion,I have the truth. The numbers don't lie.

How can someone communicate with a bigot? You are irrational, uncivilized and heard headed. It’s impossible to argue with your comments because they lead to nowhere. I am a US born citizen. So what is your excuse now?

You seem to think you are worthy to judge me, you empty headed lout, when you don't even have the brains to read the posts thoroughly before opening your big mouth. If you are an American, you certainly don't sound like one. You sound like a whiney, liberal, butt kissing sheeple.

Which issue would you be referring to?
The one in discussion here is immigration. Now, while the United States is obviously not on fire, yet, anyone with working gray matter must of needs admit that the massive influx of foreigners, legal and illegal, could just be more than a little problem. Read some of the above posts that, while they may not state it elegantly, make a very valid point. Then, instead of trying to merely attack my post, get your lazy butt out there and do some research, or, you could even just go out and take a trip to some of the areas where the immigrants live. The barrios scattered across this land will really open your eyes, that is if you survive the adventure. Now, I don't have a problem with someone trying to better their lives, nor do I hate them for believing the propaganda that said better life is here, but there is a bigger problem about to rear its ugly head. When these people come to this country and refuse to assimilate, and refuse to learn the language, and refuse to show some patriotism to their "adopted" land, there will be trouble. Guaranteed, but not by my hand. I do not advocate violence. I am just an observer, but, as an observer I can see that there is serious trouble looming just over the horizon if some sort of action is not undertaken. I don't pretend to know just what that action should be, but, I do think that, quite possibly, totally closing our borders, just for now, until we can sort out this mess, is definitely a good idea. I do not exagerate, nor do I merely blow hot air, as you appear to do, and if you had read the hundreds of world-wide news feeds, both mainstream and fringe, that I have, you would not be so presumptious as to try to school me about deductive reasoning. So please, my friend, don't presume to be able to analyze my motives or my means, you are not qualified.